I’m not sure this is a threat that BN will realistically need to face one day.

Hopefully not.

I think this will stop good people from recruiting (or, having recruited, open themselves up to someone picking on them via this rule: I could argue that every recruitment changes the culture, and if someone recruits their friend, they are doing so in some sense to tilt the culture just a bit toward themselves or their friend group) and not stop invasions who won’t respect fair play.

As Kevan stated in the Slack discussion that since we’re currently not that high risk in being invaded, simply doing the overdue thing of stating that we don’t want invaders is enough

If we put in mechanism to really deter invaders we might backfire by posing that as a challenge

But as IN recently demonstrated that there are still actors that would like to murder nomics and being more viligent in these times won’t be bad for us.

When the unspeakable soon happens we then should really CfJ or propose in a kill switch

To me, recruiting other players for the purposes of changing rules / helping assist in scams is even worse. You should recruit other players for the purposes of them having fun in the game. I worry if we spell this one out as not okay, suddenly getting your friend to join the game to help you win (even though they are basically a sock puppet) will suddenly be seen as okay.

I don’t think spelling this overdue one will lead to sockpuppetry being acceptable, but tbh as Fair Play is our collective boundary we should add that in, specific from one player controlling two Generals.

That is already there: A single person should not control more than one non-Idle General within BlogNomic, and should announce publicly if they control both a non-Idle General and any Idle Generals.

But there is currently nothing technically against fair play to just get your friends to join and help you pass votes or pull of scams.

I worry that if it goes unsaid, we can go “should’ve put in the rule, but those are all fair play violations”. But if you specifically state “A General may not recruit other players for purposes of XXXX” that makes recruiting other players for any other purpose suddenly sound okay

Even if Agora were to invade (and, right now, that looks extremely unlikely), their intention is not to “murder” BlogNomic. Nobody wants to see BlogNomic die, or to stop BlogNomic from being played. Temporarily seizing control, while still not okay, is distinct from murder.

Also, I agree with others that this is too specific for what I think you want to accomplish.

If I got 8 hours of editing window, I could have modded it, but now I can’t, and the provisions have been noted to be too specific, so this will be the first SKed proposal in the Dynasty  

To reestablish some context, the stuff about “murdering” Nomics is (as I understand it) just from Slack conversations about Cuddlebeam’s current hobby of what seems to be finding abandoned Nomics that still have the ruleset switched on, and trying out an unopposed dictatorship scam.

“for purposes of changing the BlogNomic Culture” does seem very opaque, when that culture isn’t defined. And even if it was effective against invaders, the wording of “A General may not recruit other players” gives them a loophole - their organiser could do their recruiting before becoming a General.

I know that this is sked but I will just add that I semi-object to the premise: yes, this rules out a big bulky rush of Agora players mobbing in, but it also makes it illegal to say to my pal “Hey, here’s a game you might like, it’s a bit rigidly legalistic sometimes but between the two of us we could poke it in the right direction”.

AKA: I agree with pokes.

I think I have been beating around the bush.

“Add a new bullet point into Fair Play:

“ * A General may not recruit other players for purposes of invading BlogNomic.”” would be better.

I don’t believe this would actually protect from Invasions because Fair Play is just a license to punish people, it doesn’t mechanically stop anyone from doing anything.

We could add it though, but I just think that we’re pretty unanimous on invasions being a Bad Thing anyways.

@Cuddlebeam this isn’t a mechanism to protect against Invading, it’s to state that our collective boundaries is no Invasions

(As Kevan stated in the Slack discussion that since we’re currently not that high risk in being invaded, simply doing the overdue thing of stating that we don’t want invaders is enough

If we put in mechanism to really deter invaders we might backfire by posing that as a challenge

Also there probably is the deterring mechanism somewhere on Slack - let me find that)

—-
Add a new rule into Appendix, named “Sovereign Nomic”:

“Entities may not be players, or Emperors unless it is defined by a Ascension Address.”

Add a new rule into Special Case, named “Invasion Mode”, which is Rare and defaults to Inactive:

“Any Admin may Activate Invasion Mode via a Blog Post and two Admins commenting FOR on the Post.

When Invasion Mode is Active, Players who have not signed up when the recent Dynasty starts is not considered to be a Player when voting. This may change the current Quorum as necessary.”
—-

These are the actual mechanisms that should be implemented when there’s a soon to come Invasion on Blognomic.